Shaw v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/22/2012. Show Cause Response due by 3/7/2012. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MONTE Y. SHAW,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,

15
Defendant.
16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:10-cv-02350 JLT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, TO FILE AN OPENING BRIEF

Monte Y. Shaw (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action against the defendant, Michael J. Astrue,

18

Commissioner of Social Security, on December 14, 2010. (Doc. 1). On June 30, 2011, the matter

19

was remanded for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

20

(Doc. 12). After the Commissioner prepared the administrative record, the matter was re-opened on

21

October 6, 2011 (Doc. 14).

22

On November 15, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation for Plaintiff to have an extension of

23

time to serve Defendant with a confidential letter brief. (Doc. 16). The Court granted a thirty-day

24

extension, and ordered Plaintiff to serve Defendant with a confidential letter brief on or before

25

December 15, 2011. (Doc. 17). According to the Scheduling Order, Defendant was to respond

26

within thirty-five days, or by January 19, 2012. (Doc. 4-1 at 4). When the parties do not agree to a

27

remand, an opening brief must be filed with the Court within thirty days of service of the defendant’s

28

response. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff’s opening brief was due by February 20, 2012.
1

1

In the Scheduling Order, the parties were notified that “the Court will allow a single

2

thirty (30) day extension of any part of [the] scheduling order by stipulation of the parties.”

3

(Doc. 4 at 4). The parties were informed that, with the exception of the single stipulation,

4

any requests to modify the Scheduling Order must be made by written motion and would only

5

be granted for good cause. Id. Further, the parties were warned that violations of the order

6

may result in sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 110. Id. Notably, Plaintiff has not filed a

7

motion to modify the Scheduling Order.

8

The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a

9

party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of

10

any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” LR 110. “District courts have

11

inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions

12

including dismissal of an action. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831

13

(9th Cir. 1986). A court may dismiss an action with prejudice, based on a party’s failure to prosecute

14

an action or failure to obey a court order, or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v.

15

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (dismissal for failure to comply with an order

16

requiring amendment of complaint); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.

17

1987) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421,

18

1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (dismissal for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules).

19

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of

20

service of this Order why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute or to follow the

21

Court’s Order, or in the alternative, to file his opening brief.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: February 22, 2012
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2